- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The present ap plication has been filed to quash the proceeding in case No. 1612 of 1980, State v. Manmohan Vaidya, pending in the court of IInd A. C. M. M. , Kanpur Nagar. In addi tions to the State the respondent No. 2 Ravi Dutt Sharma also appeared and was heard.
(2.) THE concerned case was initiated when an F. I. R. was lodged by the present applicant himself alleging a theft in his house, after a lurking house trespass by night. A case Crime No. 716 dated 8-10-1978 under Sections 457 and 380,i. P. C. was registered. After investigation, however, police found that it was Manmohan Vaidya himself who had misappropriated the property shown to have been stolen. Ac cordingly, a case under Section 406,i. P. C. was found against him and a charge-sheet was submitted prior to the year 1980. The charge was framed on 3-11-1980 alleging that certain properties were entrusted by Ravi Dutt Sharma with Man mohan Vaidya, regarding which Man mohan Vaidya had committed criminal breach of trust between the period 21-8-1978 to 10-10-1978. There was an alterna tive charge of theft of these articles during the above period. The charge concerning theft, however, did not indicate as to from whose possession theft was committed. After the framing of the above charge the present applicant moved a revision application No. 804- M/1980 before the Session Judge, Kanpur and the revision stood dismissed on 8-4-1981. When the revision application was ad mitted the proceeding in the court below were stayed and the records had been called for. The records came back to the trial Court on 18-9-1981. Thus a delay was caused for almost year due to pendency of the revision application and this delay could be attributed to the present ap plicant.
(3.) AFTER receipt of the records in the trial Court the case was posted for evidence but for some reason of other the case stood adjourned for days, months and years. A copy of the order-sheet indicates that on certain dates, adjournment was ob tained at the instance of the ac cused/present applicant. On 27-8- 1982 and 13-9-1982 the first witness for the prosecution was examined and an applica tion was filed by Ravi Dutt Sharma to summon on Gayatri Devi under Section 319, Cr. P. C. This was disallowed by the trial Court and a revision application was filed vide Criminal Revision No. 253-M/83 by Ravi Dutt Sharma. This revision ap plication stood dismissed by an order of the 15th Additional Sessions Judge Kanpur. The loss of this time is not due to the present applicant. The matter again came back to the trial Court. Orders were passed for placing the matter for evidence on different dates. On 16-1-1984 the court issued bailable war rant against prosecution of witnesses, no witnesses turned up and on 20-8-1984 the court directed that the remaining cross-ex amination of P. W. 1 be taken up on 19-9-1984. On that date the accused obtained an adjournment. Again thereafter there was a series of adjournments, either for the ap plicant or for the prosecution or for the absence of the witnesses. The cross-ex amination of P. W. 1 was taken up on 17-8-1985 but could not be concluded on that date and thereafter again a series of ad journments followed mostly due to ab sence of the presiding officer or for strike or on the prayer of the prosecution for absence of witnesses. Finally in 1991, the cross-examination of P. W. 1 could be com pleted and the matter was then posted for further evidence. The order dated 24-5-1995 indicates that the court took up stem attitude and observed that the incident was of 1978 and was pending for all these years for evidence and the prosecution was ac cordingly given the last opportunity to bring the other witnesses. The order dated 31-5-1994 indicates that the complainant made a prayer for adjournment as he proposed to move a transfer application. This order sheet made it clear that in terms of the order dated 24-5-1994, the court had closed the prosecution evidence on 28-5-1994 and had examined the accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and posted the matter' on 30-5-1994 for arguments. On that date the argument was heard and the case was to be disposed of on 31-5-1994 when the aforesaid prayer of the complainant was made. The court allowed time to him and adjourned pronouncement of judgment. The order sheet dated 6-6-1994 indicates that no transfer order was received out as it had come before another court, further arguments were thought necessary and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage again several adjournments were ob tained. Although there is no indication in the affidavit of the case if there was any direction from the superior court to reopen evidence, further orders indicate that the case was posted for prosecution evidence. Even after examination of the accused person under Section 313, Cr. P. C.;